The Kampung Sungai Baru redevelopment has reignited debate over Malaysia’s urban renewal laws. For decades, compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (APT 1960) has been used to push redevelopment projects forward, often leaving residents feeling powerless. Now, the proposed Urban Renewal Act (URA) seeks to modernise the framework.

But here is the uncomfortable truth: the real problem isn’t just the law — it’s neglect. Weak enforcement of strata maintenance fees, underfunded sinking funds, and a culture of skipping upkeep have left many buildings decaying well before their time. Without fixing these fundamentals, URA risks repeating APT 1960’s mistakes under a different name.

APT 1960 (Land Acquisition Act): Compulsory Acquisition and Mistrust

Enacted in 1960, the Land Acquisition Act (APT 1960) empowers the government to compulsorily acquire land for “public purpose” or “economic development.” Owner consent is not required once compensation is paid.

This law was designed for infrastructure, but has since been applied to private redevelopment. In Kampung Sungai Baru, residents objected even though the developer offered relocation costs, transparent compensation, and even joint-venture opportunities. The issue was not purely financial. It was mistrust — and a legal process that gave communities little say.

URA Malaysia: What the Urban Renewal Act Proposes

The Urban Renewal Act (URA) aims to replace APT 1960 for urban redevelopment.
Key features include:

Consent thresholds: 80% for buildings under 30 years, 75% for buildings over 30 years, 51% for abandoned buildings.
Three categories of renewal: redevelopment (demolition and rebuilding), regeneration (repairing or upgrading), and revitalisation (beautification and landscaping).

On paper, URA promises consultation and flexibility. But critics warn:

A 75% threshold still forces minorities to sell.
The 30-year redevelopment benchmark encourages premature demolition.
Without strong safeguards, URA risks favouring developers and leaving residents with higher post-redevelopment costs.

Kampung Sungai Baru Redevelopment: A Case Study

The Kampung Sungai Baru case is a cautionary tale for URA Malaysia. Despite compensation packages and relocation support, residents felt sidelined because APT 1960 framed the process as compulsory acquisition rather than collaboration.

The lesson is clear: urban renewal must be transparent, fair, and trust-building. Without that, even well-funded packages will be seen as eviction rather than opportunity.

The Real Problem: Neglect of Maintenance and Sinking Funds

Malaysia’s housing problem is not just about ageing buildings. It is about neglect.

Maintenance fee arrears run into the hundreds of millions, possibly billions of ringgit (Bernama, 2024).
Collection rates are shockingly low: 40–50% for low-cost flats, 60–70% for medium-cost, and 80–95% for high-end developments.
Sinking funds are underfunded and legally restricted, making preventive refurbishment nearly impossible.
When lifts break down, roofs leak, and garbage piles up, buildings deteriorate rapidly. At that point, demolition becomes the default — not because buildings are beyond repair, but because the maintenance system has failed.

Lessons from Singapore: Public Housing and Strata Enforcement

Singapore’s housing model provides two critical lessons:

HDB (public housing) maintenance fees
Managed by Town Councils.
Monthly service and conservancy charges are compulsory and set at realistic levels.
Strict enforcement: late fees, legal recovery, and restrictions on resale until arrears are cleared.

Private strata maintenance (MCST under BMSMA)
Similar to Malaysia’s strata developments, but with stronger enforcement powers.
Management Corporations can impose late penalties, restrict access to non-essential facilities, and register charges on defaulting units to block resale until debts are settled.
Efficient tribunal processes ensure swift recovery without lengthy court battles.

The result is simple: preventive maintenance is funded, enforced, and non-negotiable. This keeps both public and private housing in good shape for decades, delaying demolition until truly necessary.

What Malaysia Must Do: Reform Maintenance Laws Before URA

If Malaysia wants the Urban Renewal Act to succeed, it must address the maintenance culture first. Key reforms include:

Strengthen the Strata Management Act 2013
Empower JMBs and MCs with faster enforcement tools.
Introduce penalties for chronic defaulters.
Allow restrictions on resale until arrears are cleared.
Revise sinking fund rules
Permit preventive refurbishment, not just capital expenditure.
Mandate lifecycle costing at project approval stage.
Set realistic maintenance fees
No more artificially low contributions.
Use lifecycle projections to determine fair rates, with subsidies only for vulnerable groups.
Public audits and oversight
Require annual building condition reports.
Monitor arrears and intervene early before neglect spirals into decay.

Shared Responsibility: Policymakers, Developers, Citizens

Policymakers: Ensure clear laws, transparent compensation, and enforceable maintenance regimes. URA must make redevelopment a last resort, not the default.
Developers: Build for longevity, not quick turnover. Ensure new projects are designed with affordable long-term maintenance in mind.
Malaysians: Pay your fees. Respect shared spaces. Be realistic — the state cannot endlessly subsidise housing or rescue every neglected block.

Conclusion: Renewal Begins With Responsibility

The debate over URA vs APT 1960 is really about how Malaysia wants to renew its cities: through compulsion and mistrust, or through maintenance, fairness, and shared responsibility.

Kampung Sungai Baru shows what happens when trust is lost. Singapore shows what happens when maintenance is enforced.

If Malaysia wants URA to succeed, the path is clear: fix neglect first, redevelop only when necessary, and make renewal benefit the people who already live there.